|
U-Know! Forum » Thatch falls |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Merrick 2148 posts |
Edited Jun 15, 2009, 11:53
Jun 15, 2009, 11:50
|
||
|
I agree with many of the things you decry Blair for. But he was just following a pattern long established, and which Thatcher was a very vicious version of. geoffrey_prime wrote: Home Office, which clearly have let the Police get out of control. Who brought in the riot cops? Who ordered them in to the miners as a political paramilitary force? Who ordered them in at Wapping, Greenham Common, the Battle of the Beanfield to beat and maim pickets, protesters and hippies with impunity? geoffrey_prime wrote: the war criminal, Blair Whilst I'm tempted to give this a one word answer - Belgrano - I think US cruise missiles on our soil, allowing our bases to be used for war crimes like the bombing of Tripoli, and the purchase of Trident should also be read out to a court in The Hague. geoffrey_prime wrote: the appearance on the UK mainland of suicide bombers Not quite sure how Blair did that. But in Thatcher's day there were bombers we could meet an negotiate with. Thatcher, though, refused and in doing so condemned the people of Northern Ireland (and selected GB targets) to terror, maiming and death. Credit where it's due, within weeks of taking over John Major opened dialogue with those engaged in the war in Ireland. Blair's lot get the credit for the Good Friday Agreement - and they do deserve a lot - but much of the groundwork was laid by the Major administration. The Blair government must be remembered for its war crimes above all. Not just in Iraq, but in Belgrade and Afghanistan too. However, domestically they reversed, or at least slowed, the Thatcherite war on the poor. Blair reinstated the minimum wage. He brought in Tax Credits to end the poverty trap. He stopped the slashing of benefits, health care and education. for all their iniquity and cosying to money, Labour would never give us the fucking poll tax. Also worth mentioning is the Tories attacks on queers. Labour equalised the age of consent and gave us civil partnerships. Now that's in large part to do with shifts in wider society rather than government taking the lead. But there's no way the party that gave us Section 28 would have done that stuff so readily. I'd have a little jig on Blair's grave, but Thatcher's gets the full on ceilidh followed by loud and abundant defecation.
|
|||
|
jshell 333 posts |
Jun 15, 2009, 12:24
|
||
Ironically, the people who brought us peace in Ireland were the 9/11 terrorists who destroyed the WTC...!!!
|
|||
pooley 501 posts |
Jun 15, 2009, 12:28
|
||
|
Merrick wrote: Yeah Tone, let it go. What good does it do anyone to remember how and why things got fucked up and who did it? What benefit ever came from remembering the past, analysing what went wrong and knowing that injustice is a crime even if it was a while ago? I mean, when Obama was at Buchenwald last week banging on about racism and stuff we were all sat here thinking 'sheesh fella, it was a long time ago. Even longer than Thatcher. Let it go, dude'. Merrick, my friend. I'm sure you will agree that there is a huge difference between learning the lessons of the past, how things got fucked up, who did it and how we make sure it doesn't happen again and wishing death, injury and bad health on the person to blame for it. One is learning the lessons of history, and the other is a pointless waste of effort.
|
|||
|
Popel Vooje 5373 posts |
Jun 15, 2009, 12:33
|
||
|
Merrick wrote: I agree with many of the things you decry Blair for. But he was just following a pattern long established, and which Thatcher was a very vicious version of. geoffrey_prime wrote: Home Office, which clearly have let the Police get out of control. Who brought in the riot cops? Who ordered them in to the miners as a political paramilitary force? Who ordered them in at Wapping, Greenham Common, the Battle of the Beanfield to beat and maim pickets, protesters and hippies with impunity? geoffrey_prime wrote: the war criminal, Blair Whilst I'm tempted to give this a one word answer - Belgrano - I think US cruise missiles on our soil, allowing our bases to be used for war crimes like the bombing of Tripoli, and the purchase of Trident should also be read out to a court in The Hague. geoffrey_prime wrote: the appearance on the UK mainland of suicide bombers Not quite sure how Blair did that. But in Thatcher's day there were bombers we could meet an negotiate with. Thatcher, though, refused and in doing so condemned the people of Northern Ireland (and selected GB targets) to terror, maiming and death. Credit where it's due, within weeks of taking over John Major opened dialogue with those engaged in the war in Ireland. Blair's lot get the credit for the Good Friday Agreement - and they do deserve a lot - but much of the groundwork was laid by the Major administration. The Blair government must be remembered for its war crimes above all. Not just in Iraq, but in Belgrade and Afghanistan too. However, domestically they reversed, or at least slowed, the Thatcherite war on the poor. Blair reinstated the minimum wage. He brought in Tax Credits to end the poverty trap. He stopped the slashing of benefits, health care and education. for all their iniquity and cosying to money, Labour would never give us the fucking poll tax. Also worth mentioning is the Tories attacks on queers. Labour equalised the age of consent and gave us civil partnerships. Now that's in large part to do with shifts in wider society rather than government taking the lead. But there's no way the party that gave us Section 28 would have done that stuff so readily. I'd have a little jig on Blair's grave, but Thatcher's gets the full on ceilidh followed by loud and abundant defecation. I agree with everything you've said except for one point - the Blair administration did introduce a new points system for means-testing incapacity benefit claims that led to a lot of people with mental health problems to be forced back onto JSA and being fotced to prove that they were actively seeking work. This may not have been a negative development in every case - some borderline-functional IB/DLA claimants did become wrongly insitutionalised under the Tories, mostly as a means of ensuring that they weren't included in official unemployment figures. However, it did create a very difficult Catch 22 situation for claimants with conditions such as dyspraxia or Asperger's Syndrome who needed access to specialist services to help them cope with negotiating the benefits system, behaving appropriately in interviews and dealing with prejudice in the workplace once they'd found a job. As far as the gay rights issue is concerned, it's also worth mentioning that Labour finally removed Section 28 from the statute books in 2006, and I doubt that that pareticular piece of legislation will ever be making a comeback, even under any future Tory administration.
|
|||
geoffrey_prime 758 posts |
Jun 16, 2009, 00:19
|
||
|
We'll see...when the time comes. If you and a minority are out jigging and defecating, on that fateful day, I predict you will be totally eclipsed by the vast numbers who will choose to pay their respects. I would would also predict no interest at all when Blair bites the dust...unless it is via a public hanging.
|
|||
Deepinder Cheema 1972 posts |
Jun 16, 2009, 02:09
|
||
Pay your disrespects by some other means: party balloons with appropiate message, a card from the Milk marketing board. I have my tributes worked out for the demise of cancer dodging Doug Ellis.
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Jun 16, 2009, 10:03
|
||
|
pooley wrote: there is a huge difference between learning the lessons of the past, how things got fucked up, who did it and how we make sure it doesn't happen again and wishing death, injury and bad health on the person to blame for it. Firstly, the 'let it go' attitude is an exhortation to do netiehr thing. It implores us to forget. But whilst there is a difference, the latter is part of the former.Commemoration is how we remember. Group activities are how we make it a part of our culture so it becomes normalises and gains continuity. So, the jubilation at thatcher's karking it is a key part of people learning the lessons of history. There'll be so much emetic sludge spoken about her, politicians of all parties will talk of her greatness. It's a fucking lie. Those of us who know otherwise need to be ready to speak up loudly. Not just for our own sense of vengeance, but because those who are younger don't know what went on. And those who died in the south Atlantic, on a hospital trolley or at Potters Bar won't be able to speak for themselves.
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Edited Jun 16, 2009, 10:18
Jun 16, 2009, 10:16
|
||
|
jshell wrote: Ironically, the people who brought us peace in Ireland were the 9/11 terrorists Not sure how you work that out. The Good Friday Agreement was signed more than three years befroe 9/11. Popel Vooje wrote: I agree with everything you've said except for one point - the Blair administration did introduce a new points system for means-testing incapacity benefit claims That's not really disagreeing with me, though. I certainly didn't mean to say that Labour have made the nation - or even just the benefits system - fair. There is a long list of really fucking awful things they've done. In the bigger picture, their war crimes far exceed Thatcher's. However, she should still be convicted at The Hague. But I was saying that domestically they've not really done anything bad that the Tories wouldn't have done, and they've done a whole load of measures that improve life for the poor that the Tories would never have done. geoffrey_prime wrote: We'll see...when the time comes. If you and a minority are out jigging and defecating, on that fateful day, I predict you will be totally eclipsed by the vast numbers who will choose to pay their respects. I love the sneeriness of 'minority'. Geoffrey, I could say that if you and a minority vote Conservative I predict you will be eclipsed by the vast numbers who vote for someone else. But I don't really think that a view being a minority position means it has less meaning. I only pay respects to people who deserve respect. If you don't want to dance on her grave, you dance on the graves of everyone who died because of the hospitals she closed, the grave of the self-esteem of everyone whose education she ruined, the graves of whole communities that the devastated with her war on trade unions. Would you 'pay your respects' to Richard Nixon too? How about Thatcher's friend Pinochet? What I really like about the Thatcher thing is this unprecedentedness. When has there ever been a grounswell of people waiting to celebrate the death of a public figure before? At 6pm on the Saturday after she dies, people are planning to meet in Trafalgar Square to celebrate. I suspect they'll be obstructed and beaten by police. Even then, fine. That in itself is a great image for us to send around the world. I know where I'll be.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jun 16, 2009, 10:48
|
||
|
"Not just for our own sense of vengeance, but because those who are younger don't know what went on. And those who died in the south Atlantic, on a hospital trolley or at Potters Bar won't be able to speak for themselves" Nor will my brother, who died ostensibly at his own hand but in reality was a victim of her closure of the mental hospitals and false claim that Care in the Community would be an adequate substitute. Nor will hundreds of others that were never admitted to - he told me a third of the people he knew in his situation had done it before he did. So I have a badge of hatred for her as valid as anyone's. And yet, I wouldn't be part of the jubilation or grave-dancing - for two reasons. First, it won't change the mindset of those who want to say she was wonderful - in fact, it will strengthen their belief that she was right, and will therefore be counter-productive. Second, is an old fashioned almost biblical notion but one which nevertheless I've found personally true. Demonstrating hatred like that diminishes the Self. It really does. You have to try it to know it but by then it'll be too late. Much better, for both reasons, to have on the day of her funeral a day of quiet remembrance for her victims.
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Jun 16, 2009, 17:20
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: First, it won't change the mindset of those who want to say she was wonderful - in fact, it will strengthen their belief that she was right, and will therefore be counter-productive. Both of these presume that the intention is to change the minds of those who know who she was and love her for it. That isn't the intention. It is to show that this person was not what those adorers will claim, that she is a universally feted figure whose detractors have been proven wrong and that history has vindicated her. There are a great many people who don't know who she was and what she did. There can be no more immediate demonstration of that than people converging to celebrate her death. A day of quiet remembrance hands the mic to her acolytes. It means her ideas are more accepted, and therefore more likely to hold sway in future.
|
| Pages: 9 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
